Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". [1]
Direct estoppel and collateral estoppel are part of the larger doctrine of issue preclusion. [2] Issue preclusion means that a party cannot litigate the same issue in a subsequent action. [3] Issue preclusion means that a party in a previous proceeding cannot litigate an identical issue that was adjudicated and had the judgment as an integral ...
Angelo Gambiglioni, De re iudicata, 1579 Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, [1] and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
The law relating to contractual estoppel (in English law) was summarised in Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386: There is no reason in principle why parties to a contract should not agree that a certain state of affairs should form the basis for the transaction, whether it be the case or not.
Issue preclusion; Likelihood of confusion Majority: Alito: Lanham Act: The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision on an issue triggers issue preclusion for a district court's judgment when the district court decides an issue overlapping with the TTAB's analysis of a registration application, and the Lanham Act does not bar such preclusive ...
Under federal law, "concepts summarized by the term privity are looked to as a means of determining whether the interests of the party against whom claim preclusion is asserted were represented in prior litigation." [2] Therefore, privity in federal common law is "a convenient means of expressing conclusions that are supported by independent ...
For example, a judge's decision not to hire an applicant for a job is not a "judicial" decision. However, in the prisoner rights case of Forchion v. Intensive Supervision Parole, et.al. , 240 F.Supp.2d 302 (2003) the federal district court Judge Irenas (Camden, NJ) interceded when it ruled " The Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not apply to this ...
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate.